Do Any Writings of the Early Church Fathers Support the Theory of a "Great Apostasy"

[Brad_Haas]

amgid:

Was God a fool when the antediluvians sinned and all perished in the flood, and only Noah and his immediate family were spared? Was God a fool when the Jews sinned and rebelled against God, and the gospel dispensation was taken away from them and given to the Gentiles?

Since in both cases His people were not extinguished, nor did they lose the authority He’d given them, no.

 

[TOmNossor]

Arieh0310,

I think Amgid responded well to your comments.

I want to add two things.

First, what is your point? You desire for me to consider all Catholics hopelessly lost? You desire for me to deny the good I see in Catholicism because I believe there is greater truth in the CoJCoLDS? Let us not forget one of my favorite Joseph Smith quotes:
Joseph Smith:

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.

As a LDS I am convinced I have much more freedom to celebrate the Catholicism of my brothers in Christ than you seem to allow.

Second, I suspect I have more freedom to celebrate the Catholicism of non-LDS than does a Catholic have the freedom to celebrate the Mormonism or Protestantism of non-Catholics. That being said, it seems that only the sedavacantists and the SSPX Catholics are willing to so completely reject Vatican II as to think in a only us way as you seem to advocate for me. I do not encourage the liberalism that is so rampant in today’s Catholic Church (especially American Catholic Church), so I do not advocate that Catholics embrace everyone and not contend for the faith at all. But, I think it somewhat inconsistent for a Catholic to demand that others shed aspects of ecumenicalism that we may have found in our traditions. If Vatican II can say the things that were said, surely I as a LDS can stand next to a Catholic and not focus SOLELY on how wrong they are.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

oat soda:

in fact, mormons when interpreting the writtings of the church fathers, presuppose their mormon beliefs and force something when it isn’t there.

There is certainly not zero truth to this particular statement.

The fact that Lacantius taught a certain thing about Satan does not seem to be particularly powerful to me.

The fact that Origin believed in the pre-existence of man is not quite as powerful as some of the early Jewish beliefs that seem to be neither condemned nor embraced by pre-Origin writers.

The above statement is however also applicable to Catholicism. Catholic writers when encountering a singular term (similar to Pope but I forget what it is/was) that when applied to the Bishop of Rome is translated “Pope,” but when applied to folks who are Bishops of other areas is translated differently, are a good example.

Tertullian is held up as a witness to the Papacy by Butler, Dalgreen, and Hess; despite the fact that Tertullian claims that the Bishop of Rome is usurping Peterine authority (this was an unusual Catholic apologetic experience for me).

Also, Oat Soda, you are the one who advocated the “Clement Test” a little over a year ago. When I explained to you that the “Clement Test” was failed by Catholicism you explained that you do not need to read Clement to know he was Catholic. I am of the opinion that you are not one to be calling LDS to the carpet for our misuse of the ECF.

In fact, I submit to you and to all here that the type of methodology used by yourself and many former LDS will lead one straight out of Christianity. It is quite easy to demonstrate the falsity of Catholicism. Doctrine changed even though continuing revelation was denied and Tradition was affirmed. Horrible popes were chosen by powerful Italian families instead of anything even remotely appearing divine. Councils met and decisions were sealed in ways contrary to accepted procedure. Councils met and decisions were sealed in ways in alignment with accepted procedures, but said councils became “robber councils.” It is my choice to try to judge Catholicism by a standard similar to the standard I judge Mormonism. Is it internally consistent? Does it align with the principles it claims to align with? Where it appears to fall, can a reasonable explanation be provided?

You might look at the “Losing the Battle and not Knowing It” article. Applying consistent methodology, I do not think one can absolutely demonstrate either the CoJCoLDS could not be or the Catholic Church could not be God’s church. I think the CoJCoLDS comes out on top AND I think the attackers upon the BOM have thus far lost the battle and the attackers upon the BOA are not winning a convincing victory.

In addition to this, I think the Apostasy arguments I mentioned above from Nibley and Barker are stronger than the BOM explanations arguments offered by the critic of the CoJCoLDS. Hundreds of obscure books in the Joseph Smith’s basement, “pious fraud,” manuscript lost/found/no-lost, and many other explanations have been offered. Where did the BOM come from and why does it inspire so many?

Or more importantly, perhaps, why does it speak to ME and what am I to do to silence it so that I might believe in ??? ?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

RHooker:

The LDS movement developed out of the Restoration Movement of the Second Great Awakening. Its premise was that, in the latter days, the true church had to be restored. However, this means that Jesus failed to establish a lasting church. It seems ridiculous to think that Jesus, the Son of God, would allow his Church to be taken over by apostates. If we follow the LDS argument further, they should reject the entire New Testament since the NT Canon was determined by an apostate church.

The “authority that established the New Testament” in my opinion deals a strong criticism to Biblical inerranists and Sola Scripturist. The formation of the New Testament was done by the Catholic Church AND it did not perfectly follow any set rules. If the Bible is inerrant (including complete) then surely these men had authority to do what they did.

As a LDS the Bible is sufficient not inerrant. The books Protestants call apocryphal are beneficial if read with the proper spirit, but not necessary. Other books may be of value that were not included. The authority of CoJCoLDS tells us that the Bible is to be used as scripture. The fact that we do not embrace it as some perfect exercise of Catholic authority (in the 4th century) allows us to use it without supporting the Catholic authority. And lastly, one of the big benefits gained from using the KJV of the Bible is that it created common ground.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Fiat Lux:

We’re able to sin because we have free will. God doesn’t interfere in our choices or direct us, though he knows what we are going to choose before we choose it.

God’s prescience is key, really. A fool starts to build a tower when he knows he doesn’t have the resources to finish it, or sends his army into battle when he knows his army is insufficient. God sent His Son at a time when He knew His Church would stand. The alternative is ridiculous. God is not a fool.

In a similar fashion to what Chris said, one could argue that Christ failed when He was killed. But, we all reply, Christ was resurrected. Yes, He was.

Well, the Bride of Christ did not fail when it apostatized either. It likewise was resurrected (restored).

Christ came to earth in a time when men would rise up and kill their own God even though He never sinned or did evil to others. This time was unique in all history. As an added feature of this time we have Pax Romana that allowed for the spread of the gospel. The Catholic Church could perform Her function (preserve the Bible, the witness of Christ, and bring people to Christ). Another feature (I would say) or defect (others might say) was that the fullness of Christ’s teachings were not able to be preserved without the type of miraculous interventions God would not offer at this time (because it would be so glorious it would rob people of the opportunity to exercise simple faith). This falling away was part of what was to happen just like Christ’s death was part of what was too happen. The Restoration was also planned and it occurred in 1830.

Charity, TOm

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Brad Haas:

Since in both cases His people were not extinguished, nor did they lose the authority He’d given them, no.

Do you believe that the Jews of today have the same authority they had during Bible times?

On top of that, isn’t it also unfair every time some person dies without having heard of Christ? This is essentially what happened during the apostasy. Even though the Catholic Church existed, it didn’t exist everywhere, so even if it is the true Church there were a lot of people that missed out, which baqsically equals the consequences of mass apostasy.

I think, though, that this isn’t the main problem for Catholics (even though they concsiously think and say it is). The real blow is that they would feel disillusioned and personally snubbed by God if the apostasy did indeed happen, or in other words, if their belief was false. I think my advice would be to not take it personally. What was done was done with God’s wisdom, as TOm said, and we need to learn to be humble and accept that.

 

[edmondhall]

In a similar fashion to what Chris said, one could argue that Christ failed when He was killed. But, we all reply, Christ was resurrected. Yes, He was.

I find this analogy to be a thin one. Christ’s death was atoning. How is the ‘death’ or ‘apostasy’ of the church atoning? The apostasy would have to be viewed as a failure if for no other reason than billions of Christians were, and are, in error (according to LDS). In complete contrast, the good that resulted from Christ’s death is incalculable.

 

[dennisknapp]

amgid:

Apostasy and restoration has been the general pattern of God’s dealings with mankind since the beginning of creation. Was God a fool when the antediluvians sinned and all perished in the flood, and only Noah and his immediate family were spared? Was God a fool when the Jews sinned and rebelled against God, and the gospel dispensation was taken away from them and given to the Gentiles? God is no more a fool now that Christendom has apostatized, and a restoration by means of a new gospel dispensation has become necessary.

amgid

Seems to me there is historical evidence for the first two, but the last one…I don’t know?

This seems be the same old assert without the slightest shread of evidence to back it up.

I know, I know… you recieved a witness therefore this truth claim is true for everyone.

Peace

 

[majick275]

Note that in none of these biblical examples was the entire “church” removed from the earth nor was there an extended time period in which the people were left to wander about without Gods guidance.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

The question addressed, Dennis, is if the idea of apostasy is just from God’s perspective. So far I’ve seen some good reasons to indicate it is but no one actually refuting them. Edmond started to, but then didn’t finish. Would you care to, Dennis?

It looks to me like you guys are grasping at straws. The apostasy doesn’t need to be a twin to an earlier one, but the reasons and examples presented show that the apostasy is quite reasonable from a moral perspective.

(Dennis, is it just me or do you have a habit for trying to change a subject you don’t like?)

 

[majick275]

There has never been a complete, universal “great” apostasy in the history of the world. God has always cared for his people on earth in a very direct manner. Jesus came to earth as the most perfect expression of Gods love for us. He brought the true “fullness” of the Gospel. He established the Christian church. He did so perfectly. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that he failed in this. Nowhere does the Bible ever predict a complete, global apostasy. The only straws being grasped are those that claim an apostasy when there is no evidence that it ever happened. On the contrary, Jesus and his Aposltes told us unequivocally that we would always have God with us and that Christ’s church would never fail.

The writings of the ECFs support this as well. They show us the various apostasies of individuals and groups when they denounced those heresies that the apostates taught. We see from the ECFs evidence that the Catholic church today is in fact the church that Jesus created.

What we DON’T see is evidence of Joseph Smiths various “Mormon” doctrines and practices being any part of the early church. The ECFs do not write of Temple Endowments or Sealings. They do not give us any reason to believe in Nephites or Jaredites or “seer stones”.

We can see the real apostasy right in front of us.

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

The question addressed, Dennis, is if the idea of apostasy is just from God’s perspective. So far I’ve seen some good reasons to indicate it is but no one actually refuting them. Edmond started to, but then didn’t finish. Would you care to, Dennis?

It looks to me like you guys are grasping at straws. The apostasy doesn’t need to be a twin to an earlier one, but the reasons and examples presented show that the apostasy is quite reasonable from a moral perspective.

(Dennis, is it just me or do you have a habit for trying to change a subject you don’t like?)

Whose changing what subject? I merely pointed out that amgid’s example don’t follow because the first two are historical while the other one is fictional. If this is not the case then please show me some evidence for it.

You meantioned a moral perspective. Are you familar with the number of holy martyrs in the first 300 years of the Church? Are you familar with the great men and women who lived great live even up until today? Morality, yes. Then some.

Peace

 

[oat_soda]

Also, Oat Soda, you are the one who advocated the “Clement Test” a little over a year ago. When I explained to you that the “Clement Test” was failed by Catholicism you explained that you do not need to read Clement to know he was Catholic. I am of the opinion that you are not one to be calling LDS to the carpet for our misuse of the ECF.

i don’t need to read clement to know he was catholic. in my bible is a (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm) of popes, he’s always been considered one of the first popes. what’s your point?

Bishop of Rome is translated “Pope,” but when applied to folks who are Bishops of other areas is translated differently, are a good example.

everyone knows that the pope is a bishop. the role of the pope is a development of doctrine, just like the trinity. even the distinction between bishop and priest as we have today took at least a couple hundred years to develop. initially, they were all called “presiders”. we can see this development in the bible and is why rome in the earliest of days rome had multiple bishops.

It is quite easy to demonstrate the falsity of Catholicism. Doctrine changed even though continuing revelation was denied and Tradition was affirmed. Horrible popes were chosen by powerful Italian families instead of anything even remotely appearing divine.

doctrine never changes because truth doesn’t change. what does horrible popes have to do with it? didn’t peter deny Jesus? didn’t judas turn him in? wasn’t only john and the women who stood by Jesus until the end? remember wheat and chaff until the end. we are a church or sinners and saints but by far more sinners.

but said councils became “robber councils.”

i believe this had to do with the monophystite heresey and it was the pope who excommunicated everyone who had taken part in it. This is an excellent example of papal infallibility because the robber council had magesterium, tradition, and scripture to justify it but it lacked the see of peter.

I do not think one can absolutely demonstrate either the CoJCoLDS could not be or the Catholic Church could not be God’s church. I think the CoJCoLDS comes out on top AND I think the attackers upon the BOM have thus far lost the battle and the attackers upon the BOA are not winning a convincing victory.

again, the mormon argument rests on the fact that truth can’t be known and what your left with is your feelings.

 

[Chris-WA]

TOmNossor:

In a similar fashion to what Chris said, one could argue that Christ failed when He was killed. But, we all reply, Christ was resurrected. Yes, He was.

Well, the Bride of Christ did not fail when it apostatized either. It likewise was resurrected (restored).

But Christ died for His bride, the church. The church didn’t die like Christ and then get resurrected. I think that’s a silly analogy. Certainly no New Testament writer or early Christian writer saw this as the case.

Christ came to earth in a time when men would rise up and kill their own God even though He never sinned or did evil to others. This time was unique in all history. As an added feature of this time we have Pax Romana that allowed for the spread of the gospel. The Catholic Church could perform Her function (preserve the Bible, the witness of Christ, and bring people to Christ). Another feature (I would say) or defect (others might say) was that the fullness of Christ’s teachings were not able to be preserved without the type of miraculous interventions God would not offer at this time (because it would be so glorious it would rob people of the opportunity to exercise simple faith).

Tom, there is a lot of speculation in here that seems uncharacteristic for you. You’re speculating that the Church could not hold onto the fulness of truth, and that this was because God could not offer his miraculous intervention at that time. Yet did not Christ give the Apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth? When the Apostles ordained bishops and presbyters do you think they held back this gift from them? That doesn’t make any sense. The Apostles knew that they would die. They knew that they had to spread the gospel by growing the church. To hold back such gifts for the church to continue would be a failure on their part, don’t you think?

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

You meantioned a moral perspective. Are you familar with the number of holy martyrs in the first 300 years of the Church?

Of course. I would see this as another reason that A) the apostasy happened, and B) the argument that “God simply wouldn’t let such a thing happen” is false.

 

[edmondhall]

amgid wrote:

Apostasy and restoration has been the general pattern of God’s dealings with mankind since the beginning of creation

I think the pattern of **sin and redemption ** more directly characterizes God’s dealings with humans. As I read Scripture, I see institutions and nations used by God primarily as means to the more particular end of redeeming individuals. God’s end is to redeem people, not restore institutions that have comitted hari kari. That’s the impression I have, anyway.

amgid also wrote:

Was God a fool when the Jews sinned and rebelled against God, and the gospel dispensation was taken away from them and given to the Gentiles?/

Not sure what you mean by taking away the gospel dispensation. However, remember that Christianity is the fulfillment of hunderds of prophecies in the Old Testament. In this sense, nothing has been ‘taken away’.

By contrast, the ‘restoration’ of the church is not the fulfillment of hundreds of NT prophecies. I know LDS like to point out NT Scriptures that warn against apostates, but, as you know, such warnings are vastly different from prophecies that a global apostasy will occur. Let’s face it, St. Paul wrote to Timothy that the church was the foundation and pillar of truth–does that sound like the statement of someone expecting the church to soon fall into apostasy?

Anyway, if you extend to the present time the idea that God’s dealings with humans are characterized by ‘apostasy and restoration’, it is reasonable to assume that soon (if not already) the Mormon church will also fall into apostasy, only to be restored at some later date. The ‘apostasy and restoration’ line of reasoning is like a scorpio–watch out for that tail.

 

[dennisknapp]

edmondhall:

Anyway, if you extend to the present time the idea that God’s dealings with humans are characterized by ‘apostasy and restoration’, it is reasonable to assume that soon (if not already) the Mormon church will also fall into apostasy, only to be restored at some later date. The ‘apostasy and restoration’ line of reasoning is like a scorpio–watch out for that tail.

Good point, what if a Mormon came along and declared the LDS church was now in apostasy? Would you believe him? What proof would you be asking for? What if he said all you needed was a testemony of the Holy Spirit to see he was telling the truth? What if he had other Mormon followers who claimed they had recieved this testemony? How could you say they were wrong?

Watch out for those pinchers, too!

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Chris Jodrey:

Of course. I would see this as another reason that A) the apostasy happened, and B) the argument that “God simply wouldn’t let such a thing happen” is false.

So, you are saying that these holy men and women who died for their Catholic faith proves the Great Apostasy happened? This does not follow. The fact they lived holy lives which ended in martyrdom is powerful evidence against an apostasy, not for it.

Peace

 

[catholic-rcia]

*The LDS have a hard time understanding that it was in the garden of Eden that the great apostasy happened, when man chose himself over God. They do not see the Christian Christ as who he is “God, the eternal Son” We are all in apostasy, we are all sinners needing Christ, because it is Christ who saves us from ourselves not the other way around. Our Church has been around since Jesus walked the earth, it is here because we need Him, we rely on Him. The diffeneve being He, Christ is our only hope, He being our one and only God. Not just a good man, rather God to us. He would never let us down. It’s not about us, it’s all about him. Our Church is not built on the fall of another’s, it is built because of the fall of man kind. We do not get oursleves out of this dilema, Christ gets us out. We have a door in our Church that is the way home. This door hangs above the Alter and it is very much real. *

---

God Bless

 

[Brad_Haas]

dennisknapp:

Good point, what if a Mormon came along and declared the LDS church was now in apostasy? Would you believe him? What proof would you be asking for? What if he said all you needed was a testemony of the Holy Spirit to see he was telling the truth? What if he had other Mormon followers who claimed they had recieved this testemony? How could you say they were wrong?

Funny you guys should mention that. It was the subject of one of my first articles.